As the Negation I believe that debating sensitive religious issues should be allowed in Public Forum
Definitions:
High School Public Forum Resolutions: Resolutions released by National Forensics League every month to Public Forum.
Confront: Oppose
Sensitive religious issues: A viable, controversial topic that pertains to religion.

Hello, I am Public_Agenda and I would like to start by thanking my opponent for offering this excellent debate over the resolution, "Resolved: High School Public Forum debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues." I will be representing the affirmative side of this argument, and thus will be proving the validity of this statement throughout the debate through my contentions, rebuttals, and rebuilds.

I would like to start with definitions, both the ones my opponent has laid out for me as well as a few of my own.

I accept my opponent's definition of "High School Public Forum Resolutions," and would like to expand upon it by emphasizing that this debate will only discuss the issue in reference to formal Public Forum debate and its implications.

I do not, however, accept my opponent's definition of "confront," as his definition makes no sense in the context of the topic. My opponent has defined "confront" as "to oppose." However, from my experience of going to a tournament with this topic only this previous weekend, the point of the topic was to debate the validity of debates over sensitive religious issues, as well as their implications, and based on that to debate over whether or not sensitive religious issues are acceptable as Resolutions in a Public Forum setting. My opponent's definition of "confront" would suggest a topic that is saying, "High School Public Forum debate resolutions should go against or oppose sensitive religious issues," which is not appropriate for the debate at hand, as it suggests that Public Forum Debate should bring these issues into awareness. Hence, the definition of "confront" shall be changed to the following: "To be brought up for debate or discussion." Based on this definition, I will be proving that High School Public debate resolutions should in no way address sensitive religious issues.

Next, I accept my opponent's definitions of "sensitive religious issues," but would like to make the following expansions upon them. For the purpose of this resolution, "sensitive" shall be defined as anything that is capable of seriously offending, irritating, annoying, or causing serious emotional harm. "Religious issues" shall be defined as any topic that significantly involves religion, and religion shall be defined as a formal institution of beliefs and systems centering upon the worship of a god, spirit, or metaphysical entity.

With these definitions now complete, I eagerly await my opponent's first argument.

As my opponent wanted to run this argument as close to Public Forum style as possible, each side must present his or her case in Round 2. That means all contentions and major points must be brought up during Round 2. You may expand upon existing contentions or provide new evidence for those contentions in later rounds, but no new points may be made.

Because my opponent has forfeited his round 2, he has, by the rules, given up his chance to present his case and points. Thus he will no longer be able to make ANY points of his own. He may still try and rebut my points in later rounds if he desires to. If he does make contentions and points in later rounds, please ignore them, as this is breaking Public Forum rules.

Now I shall present my case, which will be summed up in two contentions and an argument block.

Contention 1: Conflicts over sensitive religious topics have caused war and genocide in the past, and religion has been an excuse to pursue extreme violations of human rights.
�
The use of religion as an excuse to pursue war, and religious conflicts resulting in war and death is no new thing. It is common knowledge that religion has been abused for these purposes countless times throughout history. Nearly every religion has examples of violence, both modern and old, even the beliefs that are proclaimed to be "pacifistic."
�
In the Old Testament of the Bible, God told Joshua to wage war against the Canaanites, despite that coming into conflict with God's own teachings (the Ten Ammendments: thou shalt not kill thy fellow man). Christianity and the fear of Satan led to a series of absurd witch hunts in Colonial America that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents. In more modern times, President Bush Jr. used his newfound "Christian beliefs" to justify going to war with Iraq to millions of Americans, although the true reasons behind his invasion are certainly questionable. Islamic extremists shout the name of Allah during bombings or combat, and in extreme cases are willing to die for their god. Even Budhism, widely thought to be a completely peaceful religion, is used as an excuse for violence. For example, the Buddhists of Sri Lanka have openly taken up armed combat against the Tamil Freedom Fighters.
�
These are just a few of the endless examples of conflict caused by religion, or conflict where religion was used to justify violent action. A few more would be Christopher Columbus bringing "enlightenment" to Native Americans in the form of Christianity, enslaving them and forcing them to mine for gold, and killing them in droves. And what about religious crusades? Those are littered throughout nearly ever religious book in existence: the Bible, the Koran, and yet others as well.
�
The point is that religion has nothing to offer to Public Forum debate but a series of hypocritical sayings and "morals," all of which are contradicted by their own religious texts. Every religion I listed earlier strictly forbids the killing of another Human being, and yet wars are waged and innocents are killed throughout thre remainder of the book. The only purpose religion serves in a Public Forum setting is an example of hypocrisy. Because religion has nothing to truly offer High School Public Forum debate, Public Forum resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.
�
Contention 2: If a person in a Public forum debate setting is forced to debate against his or her own religion, he or she could be placed in an extremely emotionally upsetting situation, and personal emotions may be dragged into the debate.
�
When a person feels strongly about a particular topic, it is extremely difficult to argue against his or her own viewpoint, even in a formalized debate setting. Being forced to argue against something you feel strongly about can lead to mixed feelings and being upset, and could even cause conflict among the people debating. Public Forum debate is a formalized debate setting intended for fun and stimulating debate. It is not intended to make people upset or angry, or make them feel personally attacked.
�
By bringing up sensitive religious topics in Public Forum debate, we either risk insulting the people involved in the debate, or end up excluding particular groups from joining Public Forum debate. For example, if a topic is "Resolved: The Islam Mosque should be built at Ground Zero," people who consider themselves strongly Islamic may choose to not enter the event because they may have to represent the Negative side of the argument, and then they would be debating against their own religion. On the other end of the spectrum, people who are strongly against the building of the Mosque for their own reasons, religious or not, may also choose not to debate as they would likely be forced to represent the Positive side of the argument. If we choose to allow sensitive religious topics in Public Forum arguments, certain groups of students may be excluded from debate. We can not exclude groups of students; Pofo debate is a public event, hence the name "Public Forum."
�
On the other hand, if the issue is sensitive to a particular student or group of students, and they still choose to get involved, emotions could raise to the point of shouting or personal attacks. Public Forum debates would cease to be enjoyable academic events, and would instead become the staging grounds for a verbal war. As was seen last year at this very event, when the Public Forum topic actually did regard the building of the Mosque, many of the students involved became frustrated and angry. Emotions became a ruling factor in debates, rather than intellect. These situations destroy the entire goal of Public Forum debate: to provide a fun, non-threatening, intellectual setting for debate. In order to preserve the integrity of Public Forum debate, we must not confront sensitive religious issues in debate resolutions.
�
Argument Block: The moral values taught by many religions are hypocritical, and the holy books that teach these values are often heavily laden with examples of such hypocrisy.
�
As was stated in the first contention, religion is often used as an excuse to pursue war and conflict, despite the fact that nearly every holy book strictly forbids the killing of another Human. There are several ideals that are generally universal in most major religions: do not kill, do not steal, respect the beliefs of others, respect nature and the world. Not only are both the Bible and Koran rife with killing and war, some of which was commanded by the same god who ordered "thou shalt not kill," but religion is used in modern times as an excuse to violate some of the other ideals. It is common for people of a particular religion to try and force their beliefs on another. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell Christians to force their beliefs on others. They are told to spread their faith, but at the same time to respect the beliefs of their neighbors. And yet Christianity was forced upon Native Americans, African slaves, and Asians. And respecting the world? Many modern religious groups, especially Christians (Pentacostal Christians most of all) have lost all respect and concern for the world. They oppose movements to protect and conserve nature, instead saying that God provided us with a world for us to use and drain to our pleasure.
�
Ezekial 34:2-4 - Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

I apologize for the forfeit as I had family business and could not make it. I will rebut all of my opponent's contentions and my rebuttals will be the core of my case, as I cannot make my case. I will then ask some questions.

Contention 1: The Aff has provided numerous examples of religion triggering war and deaths, but this does not relate to debate. We are debating about sensitive religious issues, not religion in itself. The Affirmation has disregarded the key word "issue" in the case. He has made an illogical case that debates about religious issues will result in a hypocritical and "morals". I will not argue that religion is hypocritical and has no morals because it is not on topic, but I will say that there is a lot of educational value and tolerance in debating these sensitive religious issues. There are facts. For example, one can argue about property rights and popular opinion on the ground zero Islamic cultural center topic and not just anti-Muslim sentiments, which would be a horrible contention anyways.
As we learn more and more about a sensitive religious issue, we gain more tolerance because we talk about the issues surrounding a religion. This may clear many misconceptions about a religion. For example, right now about half of Americans believe that Muslims are more likely to commit violence, and 37% have an unfavorable view on Islam [1].
As we debate about sensitive religious issues like this, educational value will increase, and in turn tolerance will follow suit. As education increased, there was a 12% increase in tolerance [2]. . As Helen Keller says, the highest result of education is tolerance.

Contention 2: Aff said that people will get emotional. Remember, we are talking about religious issues, not religion in itself. Based on the Affirmation's logic, we would pretty much take away all of public forum as every topic is controversial and will someway or another offend somebody or get someone emotional. Furthermore, the Affirmation has no proof that many people would leave public Forum if we put in sensitive religious issues. If it is a small amount, can't they just step out of the month's topic? Or just go to LD debate or Policy debate? The Affirmation also claimed that the Islamic Cultural Center (no, it is not a mosque) should not be allowed for debate. For the previous reasons I said about the ground zero Islamic Cultural Center, and because it is the most interested topic in news (with 19% followship) [3], it should be allowed for debate. Most sensitive religious issues are very recent and popular topics. To go back to the Affirmation's attack on sensitive religious issues being too emotional, this applies to all issues if it is true (which it is not). Topics can be politically sensitive and make people emotional. Almost all political topics are also inherently religious. For example, the NATO topic could talk about women rights. This goes against the religion of the Taliban (deobandi Islam). Should almost every topic be taken out of Public Forum? Should the most popular topics in news be not allowed in debate, especially Public Forum debate, which was made to debate about recent and popular topics?
This is all I can do without a case.
But please, do not quote the Bible. It is a disqualification in a regular Public Forum Debate.

Now for questions:
1. How are your examples in the first contention related to the debate room?
2. How does hypocrisy take away from the debate environment?
3. Do you have any proof that personal emotions will be dragged into the debate after a month of being exposed to the topic?
4. You said if a topic is "'Resolved: The Islam Mosque should be built at Ground Zero,' people who consider themselves strongly Islamic may choose to not enter the event because they may have to represent the Negative side of the argument, and then they would be debating against their own religion." Do you have any logic that the Negative side would be debating against Islam? If so, can you give some examples of contentions that may go against Islam?
5. How is PuFo a public event if there is a (at least for the high schools here) a entry fee to the club ($100) and a 20-25 dollar fee for all the tournaments? If there are poor students, aren't they not able to join? So should Public Forum be free to everybody just because some people cannot join due to financial issues?
6. Would you agree that not participating in an issue that he or she thinks will make her debate emotionally for the month is a reasonable alternative to debating an issue that the debater thinks is wrong for them to be debating?
7. What is an argument block?
8. Are you saying that religion in itself is hypocritical? If so, are all followers of a religion hypocritical and dumb?

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for continuing the debate, and would like to apologize for my use of a quote from the Bible. I did not realize that the use of Bible quotes is strictly forbidden, and thus I ask the judges to ignore it and not factor it into their evaluation for affirmative or negative. I will start by defending my case, then I will answer my opponent's questions, and then I will pose some of my own.

In regards to my first contention, my opponent has asserted that my first contention does not pertain to the topic. However, I clearly linked my contention to the topic. "High School Public Forum Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues." Sensitive religious issues should not be debated in public forum because they religion, regardless of how it is brought into the topic, has no place in debate. Religion is filled with contradictory "values" and has nothing to offer to debate. My opponent has even decided not to argue against religion being hypocritical or lacking in proper moral values, thus my contention still stands.

I would also like to point out that my opponent spent most of his rebuttal to my first contention bringing up his own contention, even if it was left untitled. Essentially, he wrote a contention stating that debating sensitive religious topics leads to awareness, education, and tolerance. This has nothing to do with my contention, which was set forth to prove that religious is hypocritical and thus lacks any value in a debate. As such, he was raising a new contention in round 3, which was strictly against the rules he set forth. Therefore, I ask the judges to disregard the latter half of my opponent's first rebuttal, as it clearly violates the rules.

In regards to my second contention, I must remind the Negative that we are discussing Public Forum debate only, and thus any effect on Public Forum debate is significant. The effects on LD or Policy, though, are irrelevant to the topic. My opponent claims that, based on what I said, not allowing sensitive religious topics would essentially take away every Public Forum topic. However, this is not true. The topic deals with sensitive religious issues, and an issue is not constantly sensitive. At current times, when the debates over Ground Zero are still heated, the topic can easily be considered sensitive or offensive to people at either extreme of the spectrum, regardless of the political aspects involved. A topic that is not currently the center of media attention and does not involve such heavy religious aspects should be chosen instead.

Just because Public Forum was originally made with the intent to debate about recent and popular topics does not automatically make it right to debate about such topics. Existing does not inherently make something proper or correct. Changes obviously need to occur in how Public Forum chooses its topics, to avoid insulting the students involved.

Now I will proceed to answer my opponent's questions.

1. My examples in the first contention are related to the debate room because debate is about logic and facts. Religion does not have facts; it has faith. Religion also is illogical in the sense that the holy books that man religions are based off of contradict themselves frequently. Because of this, religion has no inherent value in debate and thus topics that could easily draw religion into debate should be avoided. Hence, sensitive religious issues should not be confronted by High School Public Forum debate.

2. Hypocrisy takes away from the debate environment in that it is a logical fallacy, and lacks any value in the first place. Hypocrisy in a debate setting takes the form of contradicting points. If one side of a debate makes points regarding a topic, but then makes points opposite those points, it creates a confusing setting for judges who are trying to evaluate what point each side is making and how effectively that side represented that point. Thus, hypocrisy has no place in the debate environment.

3. This particular topic did not prove to cause high emotions, however the topic of the previous year did. The topic of the previous year regarded the Islamic Mosque, and many students from my school (University High school has a varied student body, of which almost a fifth identity as Muslim) because upset over the course of debates. They had difficulty representing the negative side because they had to argue against a point they felt strongly about, and were often insulted by the other side when representing the affirmative side. Some pulled out of the debate beforehand or during the course of the debate.

4. The Negative side may strengthten its case by debating that the Islamic religion should not be introduced more strongly near Ground Zero. Some of this may involve attacking Islamic beliefs, probably indirectly. An example would be that, "Islamic terrorists caused the Ground Zero incident." Or "The introduction of a Mosque would upset the local residence." Either of these contentions could involve points that would offend students.

5. Regardless of fees, Public Forum is still a public event. A fee does not make an event private. A private event is a specific event that only a select body of individuals may particiape in. Poor students may still become involved in Public Forum debate, regardless of their income. The NFL offers poor students other ways to pay the $100 fee. If you cannot afford to pay the money, a parent may volunteer to judge three events. Doing so would voids the $100 fee. Event fees can also be paid for by a student's school if he or she cannot afford it. This is what my school does for me.

6. Yes, not debating is a reasonable alternative. But not debating an issue would mean a particular body of students with a particular perspective on the topic would not be involved, and would thus rob Public Forum debate of its diversity and value.

7. An argument block is an argument given beforehand to "block" an argument that you believe your opponent is likely to bring up. It is a standard debate tool used in Public Forum, though few students actually refer to it as an "argument block." I just like to call it that.

8. Religion in itself is not hypocritical. However, the majority of religions (note the plurality) that currently exist are hypocritical. Just because a person follows a hypocritical belief does not mean he or she is dumb or hypocritical, though, as he or she may choose to only read or believe in particular aspects, or may find a certain value in it that he or she believes overrides the hypocrisy.

Now I will pose a few questions.

1. Is having a modern and controversial topic worth insulting or angering the students involved in Public Forum debate?

2. Is diversity in background and opinion important in Public Forum debate?

3. If students choose to not go to an event because it is offensive to them, would that reduce the diversity of the Public Forum body?

4. What value does hypocrisy have for debate?

5. What value does religion have in debate?

6. If a topic is sensitive in a religious sense, even if there are political or economic aspects involved, isn't it likely that religion will be involved in the debate?

Before I begin I would like to thank my opponent for being here today.

I am surprised to see that the solution the Affirmation has to this issue is to choose topics that are not at the center of media attention. Public Forum is based solely on making topics that are current and popular. That is why Public Forum was created. And forming from the name Controversy Debate, the Aff wants to take the controversy out. If it is not talked by the media, there is little controversy. Also, if it is away from the media's sight, how will one research it? There will be outdated, if not no, evidence on the Internet to support their cases. If an issue is not in the eyes of the media, why would they choose it? Just to get some controversy out? Would we be arguing about Hitler's treatment of the Jews?

"An example would be that, "Islamic terrorists caused the Ground Zero incident." Or "The introduction of a Mosque would upset the local residence." Either of these contentions could involve points that would offend students." -The students could obviously not include these contentions to include in these debates. Terrorists did cause 9/11. But how does this offend Muslims, as most of them are not terrorists. It would upset the local residence. Muslims need to accept the fact that many Americans do not like Muslims. If they cannot accept that fact in Public Forum, what will happen when they meet people in real life when they are discriminated against?
If they feel offended by these contention, I will stress that they can simply not include them. My opponent has assumed that even if they feel offended by these contentions, they will blindly support them in their case.

"My examples in the first contention are related to the debate room because debate is about logic and facts. Religion does not have facts; it has faith." -I cannot stress this enough. We are talking about sensitive religious issues. My opponent has made no connection to religion and religious issues.

"...it creates a confusing setting for judges who are trying to evaluate what point each side is making and how effectively that side represented that point." -If points are being hypocritical, then the judge will of course take away points for arguments. Also, religion is not religious issue.

There was no National Forensics League Topic that was about an Islamic Mosque last year. [1]
Religion in itself is not hypocritical, but the majority of them are? Can you clarify?

"Yes, not debating is a reasonable alternative." I agree too.

Now to answer my opponent's questions.
1. Yes. That is the core of Public Forum. And by the way, I did not agree that the topics insulted and angered many students.
2. No, because there is no opinion in debate. There is a certain amount of acting involved. We support an Aff and Neg case, so opinions and background should not influence these. Maybe I didn't understand the questions right ://3. No, because the people that choose not to go are minimal, if existent.
4. None. But you do not contradict yourself in a religious issue.
5. None. Religious issues have a large value in debate.
6. Yes, but not related to getting emotional. Wouldn't it be good for Muslims to argue against a fallacious argument that "Most Muslims are terrorists?" If religion is based on faith alone, why would someone base a contention off it?
Also, can you please cite where the sources pertain to you case? Thank you.

What the Affirmation is stating is that we should censor topics in Public Forum. Not just bad topics, but topics that contribute to the most talked about topic in news.
I stated that people will not be offended. To the contrary, people will gain educational value, which will result in tolerance. This is a rebuttal, not a contention. Perhaps the most important thing of note is that the Affirmation's logic is flawed. Using his or her logic, we should take everything away from public forum. Of course people will be insulted on every topic. This would result in the destruction of public forum.

My opponent's first source does not reflect how debaters react, just the population. Remember, these are teenage debaters, who are more tolerant to religion [2].
The second source is similar to the first one. The site even calls the Islamic cultural center a mosque.

I would like to start by saying that my opponent has made many unfair accusations and insinuations, including one insinuation that I lied about a Public Forum event here in Orange County last year. I will devote my round to disproving these accusations, defending my case, and summing up my points. On the other hand, though, I would like to thank my opponent for clarifying why his rebuttal to my first contention was just a rebuttal and was not the presentation of his own contention incognito.

My opponent's main counterpoint is that my logic is suggesting that we remove all modern topics, and debate on old topics. He says that Public Forum was founded to debate controversial modern topics. While I agree that this is an important aspect of Public Forum, I would also argue that this is not why Public Forum was originally founded. Public Forum debate was founded to provide an intelligent and stimulating environment for team debates that does not require the intense amount of preparation that Policy debate requires. Debating modern topics is just one of the ways that Public Forum does this. [1]

My opponent's counterpoint is irrelevant, though, because I am not suggesting that we remove all modern topics. That was an intentional misinterpretation, a cruel twisting if you will, of my original contentions. The topic is, "Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues." The key work here is sensitive.

If you cross apply the definition of sensitive that I gave in the first round to the resolution, it becomes clear that I am not saying that Public Forum resolutions should not confront any topic, or even any religious issue. Only sensitive religious issues. And sensitive is defined as anything that seriously annoys, irritates, offends, or causes serious emotional harm. Thus, only debate resolutions that are capable of producing such a serious state should be prohibited. This is what I am arguing, not that all topics in any way regarding religion should be banned. Thus, my opponent's rebuttals are misplaced.

My opponent has said that the examples I provided for contentions that could offend students are illogical, as those students could choose not to use them. But I wasn't talking about students who were of that belief; I was referring to students who were not of the particular religion using contentions that could insult other students. In this case, such students would have no reason not to use such contentions, especially if they felt it might improve the case, and thus they may insult another student. Once again, my opponent is making a faulty assumption and has failed to rebut my contention.

My opponent also has insinuated that I was lying when I spoke of a topic last year concerning the building of the mosque, or Islamic Cultural Center as my opponent so avidly points out, because it was not listed as one of the topics of the official tournaments regarding Public Forum. However, last year my school, University High School in Irvine California, attended the Fairmont OSCL Orange Country Speech League tournament, a tournament that follows National Forensics League rules and is supported by NFL. This was the Public Forum topic, to which my current debate partner, Andaru Iman, attended with a different partner at the time who has since graduated. I did not attend the event, but I know about it and how the topic was offensive to many of our Muslim students who also attended the tournament.

My opponent has stated that hypocrisy is not an issue because judges will detect it and deduct points. However, Public Forum debate was designed to be judged primarily by lay judges, who are often simply the parents of the students in the debates. They are not necessarily experienced at judging, and may not detect hypocrisy or deduct points from it. Thus, my opponent has still not denoted any value for hypocrisy in a debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you a case in which my opponent has tried to disprove my facts through a series of invalid accusations and assumptions. My opponent's entire argument has been that "I am trying to bar all topics from Public Forum," but I have never said this nor I have tried to prove it. I am not reflecting this point as the negative. I am arguing that only sensitive religious topics should not be debated in Public Forum, and not all topics are sensitive as defined above. I have disproved my opponent's rebuttals, and now will disprove the final point he has made.

My opponent has tried to prove that teenagers are more tolerant based on the gallup poll. It is a poll conducted in which students simply say what they would do. It is not measuring actual action, and people can easily choose options that make themselves look better to the public. On the contrary, recent studies conducted based on actual facts have shown that teenagers and young adults commit more hate crimes than any other age group. [2] These hate crimes are based on everything from religion to sexuality, and thus demonstrate that high school students are not necessarily more tolerant to anything, including religion. [3]

Before I begin I would like to thank my opponent and offer a warm blanket of thanks for everybody who gets this far into reading.
My opponent claimed all my contentions are illogical and not valid, but did not provide adequate reasoning why, just a "have my word for it". The Aff has disregarded my counterarguments and reasoning.

"My opponent's counterpoint is irrelevant, though, because I am not suggesting that we remove all modern topics. That was an intentional misinterpretation, a cruel twisting if you will, of my original contentions. The topic is, "Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues." The key work here is sensitive."
-Yes, but you did not read what I said to support my claim, and you claim it as a misinterpretation. People get emotional in every type of debate. Controversial topics are there so that it is controversial. If people don't agree and get emotional, what is there to debate about? Every topic offered by public forum is bound to get people of one side or another emotional.

"Thus, only debate resolutions that are capable of producing such a serious state should be prohibited. This is what I am arguing, not that all topics in any way regarding religion should be banned. Thus, my opponent's rebuttals are misplaced."
-In none of your rounds have you addressed how political and other issues are not as offending or emotionally triggered as any other type of debate or what the difference between sensitive religious issue and a regular religious issue is. Is it really possible ot have a religious issue without having it be sensitive?

"My opponent has said that the examples I provided for contentions that could offend students are illogical, as those students could choose not to use them. But I wasn't talking about students who were of that belief; I was referring to students who were not of the particular religion using contentions that could insult other students. In this case, such students would have no reason not to use such contentions, especially if they felt it might improve the case, and thus they may insult another student. Once again, my opponent is making a faulty assumption and has failed to rebut my contention."
- Yes, but would the people of the religion be offended? Of course not! They get to defend their own religion that their opponents have stated. It would in fact, be positive, that they be able to defend their own religion.

"My opponent also has insinuated that I was lying when I spoke of a topic last year concerning the building of the mosque, or Islamic Cultural Center as my opponent so avidly points out, because it was not listed as one of the topics of the official tournaments regarding Public Forum."
- Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Anyways, its not a very important part anyways, so I won't ask for evidence. But I suggest that this piece of support not be regarded too seriously as it is a small sample size, not reliable (as it is just one area), and is anecdotal.

"My opponent has stated that hypocrisy is not an issue because judges will detect it and deduct points. However, Public Forum debate was designed to be judged primarily by lay judges, who are often simply the parents of the students in the debates. They are not necessarily experienced at judging, and may not detect hypocrisy or deduct points from it. Thus, my opponent has still not denoted any value for hypocrisy in a debate."
-I'm pretty sure that parent judges can detect hypocrisy. Also, it would be very beneficial for the opposing side to actually point it out and emphasize it because hypocrisy pretty much ruins a case. Yes, Public Forum is mainly lay judges, but they can detect hypocrisy just like they are trusted to evaluate speaker points or weigh arguments.

"My opponent has tried to prove that teenagers are more tolerant based on the Gallup poll. It is a poll conducted in which students simply say what they would do. It is not measuring actual action, and people can easily choose options that make themselves look better to the public. On the contrary, recent studies conducted based on actual facts have shown that teenagers and young adults commit more hate crimes than any other age group. [2] These hate crimes are based on everything from religion to sexuality, and thus demonstrate that high school students are not necessarily more tolerant to anything, including religion. [3]"
-What? you rejected my evidence because teenagers want to look better? Look better how? It's an anonymous poll with none specified. Is there some conspiracy here? That teens are banding together to make themselves look better? I do not want to attack my opponent, but merely ask how this poll is unreliable.
-Your hate crime evidence is based on race, not religion. And please, do not reject my poll because its not "actual facts". Gallup is a global organization based in Washington D.C. It has management consulting, human resources and statistical research services and over 40 offices in 27 countries [1]. None of your websites actually support tolerance and religion.

Now I would like to bring up voting issues and conclude. The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. (Henry Steele Commager) Censorship has no place in American society, let alone debate. We are brought upon a topic of morality when we debate whether we should allow sensitive religious issues or not. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to take a stand. A vote for the Affirmation is a vote for the censorship of valuable education, the disintegration of Public Forum Debate, the hypocrisy that is not only easily detectable by judges, but also may be pointed out by debaters, and debaters being emotional, which the Aff has not linked religion and sensitive religious issues.
A ballot for the Negation, however, provides the resources needed to learn to gain a unique type of education, one which fosters tolerance. The Aff has stated about offending debates, but won't it be good for people of the religion being attacked defend their own views when the opponents pull out a contention that attacks the religion? The Affirmation has shown meager, if not negative, support of the resolution with the promotion of censorship, while the Negation provides no censorship while supporting education and tolerance. The Affirmation suggests censoring topics that all other debates can use, and suggests the elimination of Public Forum itself. The Aff contentions rely on religion in itself, not sensitive religious issues. I have repeatedly asked for the link between them, as religion is not the same as a sensitive religious issue, but the Aff has ignored my requests. I support my case through rebuttals and points of the Aff that help my case.

Because of these reasons, I urge a vote for the Negation.

High School Public Forum Resolutions should confront sensitive religious issues.
Thank you for reading and I hope you vote :)

California, novice level usually but that's only because this is my first year of S&D. I've done other debate teams. We did open at the last tournament and got fourth place out of 28. Would've gotten first if, as I said, we hadn't had two dumb blondes judging us for the first round who were forced to be there by their teacher and were VERY unhappy to be there at 7:30 AM.